Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Quote: Keyser

Sorry, but the NASA data basically says that there hasn't been any real global warming in the last 17 years.

Did you bother to read the previous responses to this? Did you understand the explanations made? I guess not.

Quote: anonimuss

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467

Absolutely not true. The following graph shows that the land, weather balloon, and satellite measurements are in good agreement and show a steady rise over the last 50 years:



The Urban Heat Island effect is a non-issue:
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 - 3.2.2.2 Urban Heat Islands and Land Use Effects

Quote: paisiello

Your question strictly is about computer models making future predictions.

Firstly, you can calibrate your models based on past data and, secondly, you can test your models by extreme events that happen such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991:


Taken from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. Global mean near-surface temperatures over the 20th century from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of all these runs is also shown (thick red line). Temperature anomalies are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950 mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic eruptions. (Figure adapted from Chapter 9, Figure 9.5. Refer to corresponding caption for further details.)

From this graph you can definitely see the large variation in the computer models, no question that there is some uncertainty there. But the two conclusions to be taken from this are:
1) Whenever a large enough volcanic eruption happened the models predicted and the observations agreed that there was a temperature drop.
2) The trend for the last 100 years shows that the models and observations are in relatively close agreement overall.

We are talking about a complicated system here. Just like the human body being subjected to a cancerous growth we cannot be expected to give accurate predictions, rather only likely scenarios of possible outcomes based on past data. And if 90% of the doctors you consulted recommended you undergo a certain treatment would you forgo it simply because of the inherent variability and some doubts raised by the other 10%?

Models are tuned (or calibrated) which helps ensure they adequately model known history. That doesn't mean they will adequately forecast the future. People have tried it with the stock market for decades without much luck. Yes I know the climate model are supposed to be based on physics and therefore the models *should* have some skill. The reality is we don't adequately understand the complex system well enough to model it. If we did then the IPCC wouldn't need to use an ensemble of some 20+ CGMs to try to forecast future warming. We have a variety of computer models with various sensitivities to CO2 along with a number of tunable parameters all trying to come up with the "correct" prediction. Some are pretty far off. Others can't be validated or invalidate for years or even decades.

If 90% of the doctors I consulted recommended that I undergo $500,000 worth of treatment in order to potentially prevent some disease that a computer model predicted I may get in 30 years I'd probably pass on their recommendation even though they have a consensus.

Quote: PBguy

Models are tuned (or calibrated) which helps ensure they adequately model known history. That doesn't mean they will adequately forecast the future.

Not true. As I pointed out in my previous post, they were able to predict the effect of Mt. Pinatubo's eruption. This was a very good test and a good validation of the computer models used.

Quote: PBguy

The reality is we don't adequately understand the complex system well enough to model it. If we did then the IPCC wouldn't need to use an ensemble of some 20+ CGMs to try to forecast future warming.

Not true. We do understand it adequately enough to model it. The previous graph shows that there is good correlation between the overall trend. The IPCC doesn't need 20+ models to predict the future trend. They use the 20+ models to demonstrate that different models can still arrive at the same conclusion. This is another strong validation of the science.

Quote: PBguy

If 90% of the doctors I consulted recommended that I undergo $500,000 worth of treatment in order to potentially prevent some disease that a computer model predicted I may get in 30 years I'd probably pass on their recommendation even though they have a consensus.

It is not just computer models. It is a measurement of symptoms as well. The computer models are just giving you a prognosis since we have no other way of determining the future of the earth's climate. I think most people would prefer to take corrective action than give up and die.

Quote: paisiello

Not true. As I pointed out in my previous post, they were able to predict the effect of Mt. Pinatubo's eruption. This was a very good test and a good validation of the computer models used.


Not true. We do understand it adequately enough to model it. The previous graph shows that there is good correlation between the overall trend. The IPCC doesn't need 20+ models to predict the future trend. They use the 20+ models to demonstrate that different models can still arrive at the same conclusion. This is another strong validation of the science.


It is not just computer models. It is a measurement of symptoms as well. The computer models are just giving you a prognosis since we have no other way of determining the future of the earth's climate. I think most people would prefer to take corrective action than give up and die.

So we don't need 20+ models but we invest millions of dollars on them just for fun? You really believe that? Have you seen the model spread? I also have to laugh at the idea that you apparently think that climate scientists simply created some models and when they ran them the models accurately represented the effect of Mt Pinatubo. That's pretty hilarious and extremely naïve. It's called "tuning" for a reason. Do you understand just how many tunable parameters some of these CGMs have? Do you think climate scientists just happened to select the correct parameter values for all of those values so that the runs accurately represented the effect of Mt Pinatubo? I'd say that's a lot like claiming you had a system for craps that you accurately predict the results of a roll after the results are known.

Because it's not political enough:

Quote:

The National Review magazine, longstanding house news organ of the establishment right, is facing a lawsuit that could shutter the publication permanently. According to The Week, a suit by a climate scientist threatens to bankrupt the already financially shaky publication and its website, the National Review Online (NRO).

Scientist Michael Mann is suing the Review over statements made by Canadian right-wing polemicist and occasional radio stand-in for Rush Limbaugh, Mark Steyn. Steyn was writing on the topic of climate change when he accused Mann of falsifying data and perpetuating intellectual fraud through his research.

Steyn went on to quote paid anti-climate science operative Rand Simberg — an employee of the right-wing think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute — who compared Mann to Penn State’s convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky.

Mann, Simberg said, is “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”

Mann sued for defamation. Steyn and the Review vowed to fight the suit, given that defamation is notoriously difficult to prove in court.

“My advice to poor Michael is to go away and bother someone else,” said Review editor Rich Lowry. “If he doesn’t have the good sense to do that, we look forward to teaching him a thing or two about the law and about how free debate works in a free country.”

As the case has played out, however, Lowry’s hubris has proven to be unwarranted.

“In July,” wrote The Week’s Damon Linker, “Judge Natalia Combs Greene rejected a motion to dismiss the suit. The defendants appealed, and last week D.C. Superior Court Judge Frederick Weisberg rejected the motion again, opening the door for the discovery phase of the lawsuit to begin.”

The Review, which has run at a loss since it was founded on money inherited by William F. Buckley, Jr. in 1955, appealed to readers and supporters for help paying its rapidly mounting legal bills.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/30/climate-scientists-lawsuit-could-wipe-out-conservative-national-review-magazine/

Quote: paisiello

This is an oft repeated and misleading statement. Please refer to the previous posts here and here that have already addressed this.


Another misleading statement. What is missing in this claim is the distinction between sea ice (the ice that forms in the winter and melts in the summer) and land ice (the ice that has taken 1000's of years to form). Yes, it's true that sea ice is increasing. Among other things this is because of increased precipitation and because of increase melt-water from land ice. If you look at land ice you see that it is actually been decreasing (Shepherd, 2012):

Looking at the bottom chart you can see that Antarctica land ice loss has contributed ~4mm to sea level rise from 1993 through 2011 (18 years). At the present rate of loss it would take over 4,000 years for Antarctica to contribute 1m of sea level rise. It would also take over 200,000 years for the entire continent to melt (given a total potential sea level increase of 58m). Obviously the melt rate wouldn't be linear though.

Of course showing a big number like 1,000GT of loss looks a lot scarier particularly when there's no context to help understand whether that's a big number or small number relative to the entire amount of Antarctic land ice.

Quote: PBguy

I also have to laugh at the idea that you apparently think that climate scientists simply created some models and when they ran them the models accurately represented the effect of Mt Pinatubo. That's pretty hilarious and extremely naïve.

I'm afraid you are the one that's naïve, friend. I'll refer you to this here for your personal edification:
Pinatubo climate modeling investigation

I have attempted throughout to back up my statements with credible references. Can you do the same?

Quote: paisiello

I'm afraid you are the one that's naïve, friend. I'll refer you to this here for your personal edification:
Pinatubo climate modeling investigation

I have attempted throughout to back up my statements with credible references. Can you do the same?

That link is from 1996 and doesn't discuss current models and tuning done for hindcast. Did you actually look at the chart and see how the predicted and actual temperature are often off by 0.4C? Think about that for a minute. You call that verification?

Look what was said about early (late 80's) models:

"The strong emphasis placed on the realism of the simulated base state provided a rationale for introducing ‘flux adjustments’ or ‘flux corrections’ (Manabe and Stouffer, 1988; Sausen et al., 1988) in early simulations. These were essentially empirical corrections that could not be justified on physical principles, and that consisted of arbitrary additions of surface fluxes of heat and salinity in order to prevent the drift of the simulated climate away from a realistic state. "

http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/06/ar4-ad-hoc-tuning-of-radiative-parameters/

More recent discussion of model tuning and parameterization:

"Model tuning is not a well-defined term. Often, model calibration or model tuning is associated with the last step of a broader model development cycle, after structural enhancements, improved parameterizations and refined boundary conditions have been implemented, wherein selected parameters are adjusted so as to better match the model results with some targeted features of the climate system. The idea that models need to be harmonized with observations is of course applicable to the model development process as a whole, as parameterizations and grid configurations are usually selected based on their ability to improve the representation of some aspect of the climate system."

http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/09/climate-model-tuning/

I really hope you don't think these models are just created basic on physics and then magically match historical temperature data!

Judith Curry discussed it her paper "Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster": http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3139.1

Quote: anonimuss

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467

Must be true! I'm reading the story "American State of the Union: A Festival of Lies".

Quote: PBguy

Models are tuned (or calibrated) which helps ensure they adequately model known history. That doesn't mean they will adequately forecast the future. People have tried it with the stock market for decades without much luck. Yes I know the climate model are supposed to be based on physics and therefore the models *should* have some skill. The reality is we don't adequately understand the complex system well enough to model it. If we did then the IPCC wouldn't need to use an ensemble of some 20+ CGMs to try to forecast future warming. We have a variety of computer models with various sensitivities to CO2 along with a number of tunable parameters all trying to come up with the "correct" prediction. Some are pretty far off. Others can't be validated or invalidate for years or even decades.

+1. Exactly. That's why climatologists are doing everything they can to attempt to make their forecasts more accurate. But it doesn't mean we throw everything away and state that the result is ZERO.

Quote: PBguy

That link is from 1996 and doesn't discuss current models and tuning done for hindcast. Did you actually look at the chart and see how the predicted and actual temperature are often off by 0.4C? Think about that for a minute. You call that verification?

I think you missed the point. It's not that the link is out of date nor that it didn't discuss tuning nor that its prediction was off by 0.4C (which it's not). You stated earlier that:

Quote: PBguy

I also have to laugh at the idea that you apparently think that climate scientists simply created some models and when they ran them the models accurately represented the effect of Mt Pinatubo..... Do you think climate scientists just happened to select the correct parameter values for all of those values so that the runs accurately represented the effect of Mt Pinatubo?.

In response I provided evidence to show that scientists back in 1991 had a chance to test their models with a real world event. The predictions and observations made from the graph agree very well:

Quote: PBguy

I really hope you don't think these models are just created basic on physics and then magically match historical temperature data!

They are based on physics. They don't need to magically do anything. They just predict trends. How do we know the models are accurate in predicting a trend? These graphs (IPCC 2001) show that if you omit anthropogenic forcings and only consider natural forcings then the models do not agree with observations:


But if you do include all the effects of forcings then the models agree quite well with the observations. In fact all the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. This is a very good indication that the models are capturing something accurately.

In 1988, James Hansen projected future temperature trends (Hansen 1988). Those initial projections show good agreement with subsequent observations (Hansen 2006):



What the models are not good at is predicting unpredictable extreme events like El Nino, volcanic eruptions, or solar activity. These add noise into the observed data but if the models are tuned to incorporate them as they are measured then the effects can be accounted for successfully. In fact, you are right, the models are inaccurate and have underestimated climate response because they don't take into account feedback from the environment (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009):




So if you think the models are inaccurate then maybe you should be concerned that they are inaccurate to the degree that they are too conservative and not predicting the severity of global warming.

Paisiello,

The last 17 years haven't fit the predictions, since there hasn't been any real warming.

No significant warming for 17 years 4 months
------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on June 13, 2013


By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

As Anthony and others have pointed out, even the New York Times has at last been constrained to admit what Dr. Pachauri of the IPCC was constrained to admit some months ago. There has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for getting on for two decades.

The NYT says the absence of warming arises because skeptics cherry-pick 1998, the year of the Great el Niño, as their starting point. However, as Anthony explained yesterday, the stasis goes back farther than that. He says we shall soon be approaching Dr. Ben Santer’s 17-year test: if there is no warming for 17 years, the models are wrong.



Usefully, the latest version of the Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly series provides not only the anomalies themselves but also the 2 σ uncertainties.

Superimposing the temperature curve and its least-squares linear-regression trend on the statistical insignificance region bounded by the means of the trends on these published uncertainties since January 1996 demonstrates that there has been no statistically-significant warming in 17 years 4 months:

clip_image002

On Dr. Santer’s 17-year test, then, the models may have failed. A rethink is needed.

The fact that an apparent warming rate equivalent to almost 0.9 Cº is statistically insignificant may seem surprising at first sight, but there are two reasons for it. First, the published uncertainties are substantial: approximately 0.15 Cº either side of the central estimate.

Secondly, one weakness of linear regression is that it is unduly influenced by outliers. Visibly, the Great el Niño of 1998 is one such outlier.

If 1998 were the only outlier, and particularly if it were the largest, going back to 1996 would be much the same as cherry-picking 1998 itself as the start date.

However, the magnitude of the 1998 positive outlier is countervailed by that of the 1996/7 la Niña. Also, there is a still more substantial positive outlier in the shape of the 2007 el Niño, against which the la Niña of 2008 countervails.

In passing, note that the cooling from January 2007 to January 2008 is the fastest January-to-January cooling in the HadCRUT4 record going back to 1850.

Bearing these considerations in mind, going back to January 1996 is a fair test for statistical significance. And, as the graph shows, there has been no warming that we can statistically distinguish from zero throughout that period, for even the rightmost endpoint of the regression trend-line falls (albeit barely) within the region of statistical insignificance.

Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Niño could – at least temporarily – bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc.

It is better to focus on the ever-widening discrepancy between predicted and observed warming rates. The IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report backcasts the interval of 34 models’ global warming projections to 2005, since when the world should have been warming at a rate equivalent to 2.33 Cº/century. Instead, it has been cooling at a rate equivalent to a statistically-insignificant 0.87 Cº/century:

clip_image004

The variance between prediction and observation over the 100 months from January 2005 to April 2013 is thus equivalent to 3.2 Cº/century.

The correlation coefficient is low, the period of record is short, and I have not yet obtained the monthly projected-anomaly data from the modelers to allow a proper p-value comparison.

Yet it is becoming difficult to suggest with a straight face that the models’ projections are healthily on track.

From now on, I propose to publish a monthly index of the variance between the IPCC’s predicted global warming and the thermometers’ measurements. That variance may well inexorably widen over time.

In any event, the index will limit the scope for false claims that the world continues to warm at an unprecedented and dangerous rate.

UPDATE: Lucia’s Blackboard has a detailed essay analyzing the recent trend, written by SteveF, using an improved index for accounting for ENSO, volcanic aerosols, and solar cycles. He concludes the best estimate rate of warming from 1997 to 2012 is less than 1/3 the rate of warming from 1979 to 1996. Also, the original version of this story incorrectly referred to the Washington Post, when it was actually the New York Times article by Justin Gillis. That reference has been corrected.- Anthony

Quote: PBguy

Looking at the bottom chart you can see that Antarctica land ice loss has contributed ~4mm to sea level rise from 1993 through 2011 (18 years). At the present rate of loss it would take over 4,000 years for Antarctica to contribute 1m of sea level rise. It would also take over 200,000 years for the entire continent to melt (given a total potential sea level increase of 58m). Obviously the melt rate wouldn't be linear though.

Again, you missed the point. The graph was presented to contradict a misleading statement made by a previous poster about Antarctic ice. Do you agree that the graph does this?

Quote: PBguy

Of course showing a big number like 1,000GT of loss looks a lot scarier particularly when there's no context to help understand whether that's a big number or small number relative to the entire amount of Antarctic land ice.

Now if you want to discuss sea level rising then your statements are meaningless and misleading. You are implying that since it would take 200,000 years for the Antarctic to melt then the sea level rise overall would be insignificant. In fact the contributions from sea level rise are approximately 50% from thermal expansion and 50% from ice melt. The ice melt contributions have been estimated as follows (Meier et al., 2007):



So the contribution from Antarctic overall is less than 5%. Using your own numbers then the time frame for a 1m rise in sea level drops from 4,000 years to less than 200 years. This would assume a linear trend and assumes there is no environmental feedback.

Quote: Keyser

Paisiello,

The last 17 years haven't fit the predictions, since there hasn't been any real warming.

No significant warming for 17 years 4 months

Not true. If you refer to the HadCRUT4 graphs from the previous posts then you see that there has been real warming over the last 14 years as shown by the blue line. Yes, the slope is much less than the overall trend as shown by the red line but you can pick any dates in the past and show that there were similar "pauses" for 10 years as shown by the purple line. You really can't just pick two arbitrary points and connect them together.

Also from the graph it can be seen the warmest years on record have been observed in this 14 year period. In 1998 we had a large El Nino event which gave a large warm anomaly in the weather. Therefore, links back to that year will not give an accurate picture about overall global temperature trends. To conclude that global warming has stopped from this is not an accurate statement. The other graph in the previous post shows that you can take out the effects from El Nino and other natural forcings such as volcanoes and solar activity and show that the rate hasn't paused at all.

In addition, the HadCRUT4 graph only measures the land surface temperatures at limited locations. If you factor in data from more complete satellite data then the results suggest that the Met Office is underestimating the global temperature trend over the last 14 years. Or if you look at the amount of heat the ocean has been absorbing over the same time period then there is a very steady increase (Nuccitelli et al., 2012):



How does Lord Monckton explain this? He simply is not a credible source for information.

No, according the graph below it has been cooling. The blue is observed. The red is what WAS predicted.

No, you said the last 17 years, 4 months. Your graph only covers 8 years. Also, if I took the data say from 2008 then I could make the claim that global warming has been increasing for the last 5 years. So you fail to back up your claim with any credible evidence.

Furthermore, this graph and the article accompanying it hasn't been published in a peer reviewed publication. Lord Monckton is not a climate scientist and hasn't published anything on the subject in a peer reviewed journal. He is not credible.

Next.

Quote: paisiello

Not true. If you refer to the HadCRUT4 graphs from the previous posts then you see that there has been real warming over the last 14 years as shown by the blue line. Yes, the slope is much less than the overall trend as shown by the red line but you can pick any dates in the past and show that there were similar "pauses" for 10 years as shown by the purple line. You really can't just pick two arbitrary points and connect them together.

Also from the graph it can be seen the warmest years on record have been observed in this 14 year period. In 1998 we had a large El Nino event which gave a large warm anomaly in the weather. Therefore, links back to that year will not give an accurate picture about overall global temperature trends. To conclude that global warming has stopped from this is not an accurate statement. The other graph in the previous post shows that you can take out the effects from El Nino and other natural forcings such as volcanoes and solar activity and show that the rate hasn't paused at all.

In addition, the HadCRUT4 graph only measures the land surface temperatures at limited locations. If you factor in data from more complete satellite data then the results suggest that the Met Office is underestimating the global temperature trend over the last 14 years. Or if you look at the amount of heat the ocean has been absorbing over the same time period then there is a very steady increase (Nuccitelli et al., 2012):



How does Lord Monckton explain this? He simply is not a credible source for information.

I love that chart! It's a lot like the global land ice loss chart showing a dramatic reduction when in reality it's very minor. Here OHC is displayed to make it appear that a HUGE amount of heat is being stored when in reality the data shows "a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's."

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

0.06C in over 40 years! That sure doesn't sound as scary as that chart would lead one to believe.


I also like the chart showing Hansen 88 but prefer it updated with current data:



Now that simple model doesn't appear to be very accurate, does it? Scenario A is closest to what has actually happened (CO2 growth is actually larger than predicted in Scenario A) and it's significantly too warm compared to observations.

Quote: paisiello

Quote: PBguy

Looking at the bottom chart you can see that Antarctica land ice loss has contributed ~4mm to sea level rise from 1993 through 2011 (18 years). At the present rate of loss it would take over 4,000 years for Antarctica to contribute 1m of sea level rise. It would also take over 200,000 years for the entire continent to melt (given a total potential sea level increase of 58m). Obviously the melt rate wouldn't be linear though.

Again, you missed the point. The graph was presented to contradict a misleading statement made by a previous poster about Antarctic ice. Do you agree that the graph does this?



Now if you want to discuss sea level rising then your statements are meaningless and misleading. You are implying that since it would take 200,000 years for the Antarctic to melt then the sea level rise overall would be insignificant. In fact the contributions from sea level rise are approximately 50% from thermal expansion and 50% from ice melt. The ice melt contributions have been estimated as follows (Meier et al., 2007):



So the contribution from Antarctic overall is less than 5%. Using your own numbers then the time frame for a 1m rise in sea level drops from 4,000 years to less than 200 years. This would assume a linear trend and assumes there is no environmental feedback.

All I was doing was putting Antarctic land ice loss into perspective. You showed a chart with loss in GT which makes it appear to be a huge amount of loss and many people are unable to understand that value in context. I think it's easier to understand it when shown as a component of sea level rise. I'm glad to see that you agree that the contributions to sea level rise from Antarctica ice loss is minor.

Quote: PBguy

I love that chart! It's a lot like the global land ice loss chart showing a dramatic reduction when in reality it's very minor. Here OHC is displayed to make it appear that a HUGE amount of heat is being stored when in reality the data shows "a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's."

Again you missed the intent. I posted the graph in response to a previous poster who made the common erroneous claim that global warming has paused in the last 17 years. Among other things, I showed the graph to contradict this claim. If global warming is on pause then where is all this heat coming from?

And it actually is a lot of heat. An Hiroshima-sized atomic bomb gives off the equivalent of about 6.3x10^13 J of energy. The rate of heat gain in the last 10 years has been around 8x10^21 J per year. This works out to approximately 2 billion atomic bombs going off since 1998. Does that sound like a pause in global warming to you?

Quote: PBguy

I also like the chart showing Hansen 88 but prefer it updated with current data...

And the source for your graph is?

I try to always give my references so someone can check the source material. If it's not too much to ask, please endeavor to do the same.

Quote: PBguy

All I was doing was putting Antarctic land ice loss into perspective. You showed a chart with loss in GT which makes it appear to be a huge amount of loss and many people are unable to understand that value in context.

And all I was doing was providing information to contradict a previous poster's misleading claim that Antarctic ice was increasing. You agree that the chart did this at least?

Quote: PBguy

I'm glad to see that you agree that the contributions to sea level rise from Antarctica ice loss is minor.

Has anyone claimed this to be otherwise?

Quote: paisiello

Again you missed the intent. I posted the graph in response to a previous poster who made the common erroneous claim that global warming has paused in the last 17 years. Among other things, I showed the graph to contradict this claim. If global warming is on pause then where is all this heat coming from?

And it actually is a lot of heat. An Hiroshima-sized atomic bomb gives off the equivalent of about 6.3x10^13 J of energy. The rate of heat gain in the last 10 years has been around 8x10^21 J per year. This works out to approximately 1 billion atomic bombs going off since 1998. Does that sound like a pause in global warming to you?

So you showed a chart indicating that the oceans have warmed by 0.06C in 40 years (based on OHC increase over that time frame) as proof that the pause isn't really a pause at all? It seems you're a Skeptical Science aficionado and have drank the Kool Aid. You really think that referring to the ocean warming in terms of the number of Hiroshima bombs puts it in context? Really? It's 0.06C in 40 years. That's it. Talk about it in the number of Joules or Hiroshima bombs or candy bars - it doesn't matter it's still 0.06C degrees.

Quote: paisiello

And all I was doing was providing information to contradict a previous poster's misleading claim that Antarctic ice was increasing. You agree that the chart did this at least?


Has anyone claimed this to be otherwise?

The previous posts correctly stated that Antarctic sea ice has increased. To counter that you posted a chart showing Antarctic land ice has decreased. How does that counter their claim about sea ice???

Quote: paisiello

And the source for your graph is?

I try to always give my references so someone can check the source material. If it's not too much to ask, please endeavor to do the same.

http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=4006

It's not difficult to verify the chart for yourself.

Real Climate did a similar post back in 2007 because at the time observations were fairly close to Scenario B projections. They considered that validation of the Hansen 88 model. I doubt you'll see them do an update in 2014 since observations are now at least 0.4C lower than Scenario B projections:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

Quote: PBguy

So you showed a chart indicating that the oceans have warmed by 0.06C in 40 years (based on OHC increase over that time frame) as proof that the pause isn't really a pause at all?

You only have that partially right. First of all the graph I referenced shows only heat gain, not temperature. Secondly, the time frame referenced was 17 years, not 40, since this was the time frame originally brought up by the previous poster. Thirdly, and lastly, yes, along with other evidence previously referenced it is strong evidence that global warming has not paused at all.

Quote: PBguy

It seems you're a Skeptical Science aficionado and have drank the Kool Aid. You really think that referring to the ocean warming in terms of the number of Hiroshima bombs puts it in context? Really? It's 0.06C in 40 years. That's it. Talk about it in the number of Joules or Hiroshima bombs or candy bars - it doesn't matter it's still 0.06C degrees.

You were the one who said the graph had no context so I gave it one. If you don't think 1 billion atomic bombs is a lot of energy to introduce into the climate then maybe you should reveal what amount you think is then. You have to explain if global warming has paused then where is the observed heat energy coming from?

If accepting the peer reviewed science as interpreted by 90% of the world's climate scientists means I have "drank" the kool-aid, then I freely admit to it. Until someone invents a better method to determine true phenomena in the world then i'll keep on drinking...

Quote: PBguy

The previous posts correctly stated that Antarctic sea ice has increased. To counter that you posted a chart showing Antarctic land ice has decreased. How does that counter their claim about sea ice???

I said their claim was misleading since it didn't mention the more important land ice. They were implying that there was no global warming because of the increase in sea ice. I was contradicting this implication.

Quote: paisiello

You only have that partially right. First of all the graph I referenced shows only heat gain, not temperature. Secondly, the time frame referenced was 17 years, not 40, since this was the time frame originally brought up by the previous poster. Thirdly, and lastly, yes, along with other evidence previously referenced it is strong evidence that global warming has not paused at all.


You were the one who said the graph had no context so I gave it one. If you don't think 1 billion atomic bombs is a lot of energy to introduce into the climate then maybe you should reveal what amount you think is then. You have to explain if global warming has paused then where is the observed heat energy coming from?

If accepting the peer reviewed science as interpreted by 90% of the world's climate scientists means I have "drank" the kool-aid, then I freely admit to it. Until someone invents a better method to determine true phenomena in the world then i'll keep on drinking...

Yes it's very convenient to show heat gain instead of temperature since it looks more ominous. After all showing a 0.06C gain in 40+ years doesn't sound frightening, does it? It's easy enough to convert the heat to temperature. I can provide links if you like but they all support the claim of a gain of only 0.06C +/- 0.03C. I quoted directly from NASA regarding the 40 year time frame.

As far as giving an example in Hiroshima bombs why didn't you just embed the graphic directly from SkS? After all they're the ones that tried to popularize the use of Hiroshima bombs worth of heat in order to scare people. They even use a nice scary mushroom cloud graphic to reinforce the message.

Your graphic on OHC shows a almost constant gain since ~1975 with little to no change in rate since at least 1995. But all of a sudden we're supposed to believe that "the pause" (or hiatus) is due to energy going into the ocean instead of the atmosphere? That chart sure doesn't show that. It shows OHC rising at the same time that global land+sea temperature was rising steadily. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that the pause in land+sea temperature rise is due to the energy suddenly going into the ocean instead.

Is a billion Hiroshima bombs worth of energy added to the oceans a lot of energy? Depends on how much energy is already stored in the oceans and the temperature of the oceans compared to historical times. Since it's only enough energy to raise the temperature by 0.06C then it certainly doesn't make me worry that it's too much energy.

Rosenthal et al 2013 said:

"We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades."

So if a billion Hiroshima bombs worth of heat only cause a temperature rise of 0.06C imagine how much energy was absorbed by the oceans to cause it to be 2.1C warmer than present. Also imagine how much energy was lost in just the last 150 years since the end of the LIA.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617.abstract

Quote: paisiello

Quote: PBguy

The previous posts correctly stated that Antarctic sea ice has increased. To counter that you posted a chart showing Antarctic land ice has decreased. How does that counter their claim about sea ice???

I said their claim was misleading since it didn't mention the more important land ice. They were implying that there was no global warming because of the increase in sea ice. I was contradicting this implication.

Saying that Antarctic sea ice is at record levels isn't misleading - it's stating a fact. That fact has nothing to do with Antarctic land ice loss (which is related to precipitation rates). You can discuss them separately without being misleading.

Quote: PBguy

http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=4006

It's not difficult to verify the chart for yourself.

The link you provided appears to be a german website for selling some kind of book about debunking climate science. As far as I could tell they are not climate scientists. The article itself appears not to be from a peer reviewed journal but rather just some posting by a retired university professor. I'll take a guess that like most skeptics he is not a climate scientist. So your reference is not credible, sorry.

I guess I would suggest that you put this together yourself and submit it to a credible science journal for peer review

Quote: PBguy

Your graphic on OHC shows a almost constant gain since ~1975 with little to no change in rate since at least 1995. But all of a sudden we're supposed to believe that "the pause" (or hiatus) is due to energy going into the ocean instead of the atmosphere? That chart sure doesn't show that.

What the graph shows correctly is that over 90% of the heat energy is absorbed by the oceans which act as a big heat sink. The numerous pauses that have occurred in the atmosphere temperatures can be attributed to other forcings such as El Nino, volcanic eruptions, and solar activity.

Quote: PBguy

Is a billion Hiroshima bombs worth of energy added to the oceans a lot of energy? Depends on how much energy is already stored in the oceans and the temperature of the oceans compared to historical times. Since it's only enough energy to raise the temperature by 0.06C then it certainly doesn't make me worry that it's too much energy.

Again, the point is not the temperature change but rather that there has been no slow down in energy input over the last 17 years. If global warming has stopped or paused then where did this heat energy come from?

Even warmists accept the increase in Antarctic sea ice, resulting in contorted rationales like this one:

"Why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?

While Arctic sea ice loss has shown dramatic decline over the past few decades, Antarctic sea ice has shown long term growth since satellites began measurements in 1979. This is an observation that has been often cited by skeptics as proof against global warming. However, in all the skeptic articles I've read, not one has raised the crucial question: why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?

The implicit assumption is that if Antarctic sea ice is growing, it must be cooling around Antarctica. This is decidely not the case. In fact, the Southern Ocean has been warming faster than other oceans in the world. The average global ocean temperature trend has been 0.1°C per decade from 1955 to 1995. In contrast, the Southern Ocean has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it is warming faster than the global trend.

So this raises the big question: if the Southern Ocean is warming, why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? The paper Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions (Zhang 2007) attempts to answer this question. The paper uses a coupled ocean/sea ice model to find the predominant reason that sea ice is increasing is due to a decrease in upward ocean heat transport. Eg - less heat is being carried up by ocean convection to melt sea ice. The reason for this is a complex chain of events.

When surface temperature increases, the upper ocean warms and ice growth decreases. This leads to a decrease in salt rejection from new ice. The salinity of the upper ocean falls. Lower salinity and warmer water results in lower water density in the upper ocean. With fresher, less dense upper water, there is now increased stratification of ocean layers which weakens convective overturning. Less ocean heat is transported upwards. This leads to a decrease in ice melting from ocean heat. Hence we observe an increase in net ice production - sea ice increases.

While all that is a bit of a mouthful, it's actually a simplification of the process as there are various feedbacks along the process. Warming air increases upper ocean temperature which affects air temperature through air-sea interactions. Warming temperature leads to increased precipitation which increases sea ice growth. More sea ice means less atmospheric heat can penetrate waters.

The bottom line is the answer to Antarctic sea ice isn't simple - the Southern Ocean is a complex system with a number of factors likely contributing. One factor certainly isn't a contributor." skepticalscience

Quote: paisiello

No, you're wrong there. The graph was shown because it's from a peer reviewed paper published in a credible science journal. I wish you and the other posters would also provide credible references from climate scientists.

Nice try but I linked you directly to the source of the Argo data at ucsd.edu. Since apparently that's not enough of a credible source then how about this from Levitus et al 2012:

"We provide updated estimates of the change of heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0-700 and 0-2000 m layers of the world ocean for 1955-2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, correcting for instrumental biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding some Argo float data. The heat content of the world ocean for the 0-2000 m layer increased by 24.0x1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.39 Wm-2 (per unit area of the world ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09ºC."

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml#content

Did you really not believe (or better yet, not know) that the warming since 1955 was only 0.06 - 0.09C?

As I said it's not that difficult to calculate the increase in temperature from the OHC increase.

Quote: PBguy

Nice try but I linked you directly to the source of the Argo data at ucsd.edu.

I was referring to the link you made to the German book author's website with a post from a non-climate scientist. It was not a credible reference.

Quote: PBguy

Did you really not believe (or better yet, not know) that the warming since 1955 was only 0.06 - 0.09C?

The point is not the temperature change but rather the steady increase in heat content in the earth's climate over the last 17 years the majority of which has been absorbed by the ocean. If global warming has been on pause then where did this heat energy input come from? You need to answer this question please.

Quote: PBguy

Saying that Antarctic sea ice is at record levels isn't misleading - it's stating a fact. That fact has nothing to do with Antarctic land ice loss (which is related to precipitation rates). You can discuss them separately without being misleading.

I disagree. Someone who may not be familiar with the science may erroneously conclude that this must be evidence that global warming can't be happening when in fact the opposite is true. And this attempt to mislead was clearly the intent of the article that was referenced.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Even warmists accept the increase in Antarctic sea ice...

No one has said otherwise. The argument is that it was misleading to refer to one aspect and completely ignore the rest.

For example, I could argue that the current evidence shows that the Antarctic sea ice mostly melted away this month. I mean it's true isn't it? All I did was state a fact. You can't contradict this fact, right? The implication, whether I state it or not, is therefore that global warming must be occurring. I mean, after all, the ice is melting and that only happens when things get warm, right? It's just common sense!

Well, I can't do that. It is misleading when the fact is this is just a seasonal pattern that occurs every year.

Quote: PBguy

Since apparently that's not enough of a credible source then how about this from Levitus et al 2012:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml#content

Yes, this appears to be a credible reference, thank you for posting it. Although I think your intent was to show that the temperature change in the oceans since 1955 has been insignificant and I did not read the entire article itself, the key points summary does state the following:

Key Points
•A strong positive linear trend in exists in world ocean heat content since 1955
•One third of the observed warming occurs in the 700-2000 m layer of the ocean
•The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs

Please post more links like this one.

Quote: paisiello

I was referring to the link you made to the German book author's website with a post from a non-climate scientist. It was not a credible reference.


The point is not the temperature change but rather the steady increase in heat content in the earth's climate over the last 17 years the majority of which has been absorbed by the ocean. If global warming has been on pause then where did this heat energy input come from? You need to answer this question please.

Not credible? It's just data plotted against Hansen's projections. It matches what Real Climate did in 2007 just with updated temperature data. You really don't want to believe that Hansen's model could be wrong, do you?

Do you know what a reanalysis is? If not you should read up on it. The chart you posted is based on an assumption of the radiative imbalance is 0.6Wm/s. But the uncertainty is +/- 14Wm/s! Look into how the OHC increase was calculated - not measured - using the assumed radiative imbalance and Argo data reanalysis.

The "pause" or "hiatus" refers to the recent stagnation in global land+sea temperature. Since it's been relatively flat people like your friends at Skeptical Science have been thrashing around trying to prove the earth is still warming. An increase in ocean temperature of 0.06C over a period of decades will have very little impact on air temperature.

Quote: paisiello

Yes, this appears to be a credible reference, thank you for posting it. Although I think your intent was to show that the temperature change in the oceans since 1955 has been insignificant and I did not read the entire article itself, the key points summary does state the following:

Key Points
•A strong positive linear trend in exists in world ocean heat content since 1955
•One third of the observed warming occurs in the 700-2000 m layer of the ocean
•The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs

Please post more links like this one.

"strong trend"? 0.09C over 40+ years is a "strong trend"?

I never claimed the warming wasn't due to the increase in atmospheric GHGs although I find that claim suspect. Just because they claim it doesn't mean it's true. If it's true then I'd like to see how they explain the large loss of OHC (almost 0.65C since the LIA, Rosenthal et al 2013) with atmospheric CO2 changing very little since then.

Quote: paisiello

The link you provided appears to be a german website for selling some kind of book about debunking climate science. As far as I could tell they are not climate scientists. The article itself appears not to be from a peer reviewed journal but rather just some posting by a retired university professor. I'll take a guess that like most skeptics he is not a climate scientist. So your reference is not credible, sorry.

I guess I would suggest that you put this together yourself and submit it to a credible science journal for peer review

No one cares if Hansen's model has failed to verify. It's not news. Apparently you're one of the few people that find it to be a surprise.

Quote: PBguy

Not credible? It's just data plotted against Hansen's projections. It matches what Real Climate did in 2007 just with updated temperature data. You really don't want to believe that Hansen's model could be wrong, do you?

It's not information prepared by an expert in the field nor was it peer reviewed for publication in a professional journal. Hansen is a recognized expert in the field and his paper was published in a peer reviewed journal. Which one do you think would be more credible in a court of law?

It's not what I want to believe or not to believe, it's whether or not the information presented is credible.

Quote: PBguy

The chart you posted is based on an assumption of the radiative imbalance is 0.6Wm/s. But the uncertainty is +/- 14Wm/s! Look into how the OHC increase was calculated - not measured - using the assumed radiative imbalance and Argo data reanalysis.

Source please. And please make it a credible one.

Quote: PBguy

...Skeptical Science have been thrashing around trying to prove the earth is still warming. An increase in ocean temperature of 0.06C over a period of decades will have very little impact on air temperature.

No, they do not need to prove this. The evidence is still strong. I think maybe you are confused with recent attempts to refine the data and modelling so they are in better agreement?

Quote: PBguy

"strong trend"? 0.09C over 40+ years is a "strong trend"?

This is from your reference not mine. At least it appears to be a credible source.

Quote: PBguy

I never claimed the warming wasn't due to the increase in atmospheric GHGs although I find that claim suspect. Just because they claim it doesn't mean it's true. If it's true then I'd like to see how they explain the large loss of OHC (almost 0.65C since the LIA, Rosenthal et al 2013) with atmospheric CO2 changing very little since then.

I would think the answer lies in that one is occurring over hundreds of years and the other over a few decades?

Quote: PBguy

No one cares if Hansen's model has failed to verify. It's not news. Apparently you're one of the few people that find it to be a surprise.

I am still waiting for a credible source from you to back up this claim. The previous reference you gave was not credible.

Sex plays a very important role in life of the people in a state of Georgia.During the recent ice storm some individuals were engaged in a sexual act at pharmacies, high schools and gas stations."Climate change is the greatest thing which happened to me", declared a Georgian man.

Quote: paisiello

Quote: SanchoPanza

Even warmists accept the increase in Antarctic sea ice...

No one has said otherwise.

This surely looks as if it is most definitely saying otherwise: "All I was doing was providing information to contradict a previous poster's misleading claim that Antarctic ice was increasing."

Quote: SanchoPanza

This surely looks as if it is most definitely saying otherwise: "All I was doing was providing information to contradict a previous poster's misleading claim that Antarctic ice was increasing."

But clearly the intent of the original poster and of the (not credible) article he referenced was to infer that global warming was not happening. I am contradicting this inference. If you interpreted this to somehow mean that I said that Antarctic sea ice is decreasing then I am sorry for any confusion as this was not my intent at all.

Quote: paisiello

I am still waiting for a credible source from you to back up this claim. The previous reference you gave was not credible.

I'm not sure why you need a source at all. Look at the link I provided to Real Climate and add in more recent temperature data. It's really not difficult to do and you'll see the exact same results as the chart I posted. But I have a feeling you don't WANT to see that it's true. It's easier to believe that these models are simply based on physics and well understood processes so therefore they're correct. You don't want to believe that climate models are tuned and parameters adjusted.

Are you aware that the models used by the IPCC have a Equilibrium climate sensitivity ranging from 2.1C to 4.4C? If all of those models accurately represent past temperature then how can they have such different values for climate sensitivity? Obviously there are other parameters involved.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html

Quote: PBguy

I'm not sure why you need a source at all.

I think providing a source is very important for a number of reasons. Primarily it can provide a sense that the information is reliable or not of course but also I think the source can provide context for the information. Otherwise someone could omit critical facts and mislead the reader.

Quote: PBguy

But I have a feeling you don't WANT to see that it's true. It's easier to believe that these models are simply based on physics and well understood processes so therefore they're correct. You don't want to believe that climate models are tuned and parameters adjusted.

I don't believe I have ever said this. All I have said is there is good evidence that the models are valid.

Quote: PBguy

Are you aware that the models used by the IPCC have a Equilibrium climate sensitivity ranging from 2.1C to 4.4C? If all of those models accurately represent past temperature then how can they have such different values for climate sensitivity? Obviously there are other parameters involved.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html

I'm sure that there are. Regardless, the models have been validated.

My point is that you don't need a source for something that you yourself can do. If you claim that it was hot yesterday I wouldn't expect you to provide a source for that claim as I can easily verify it. The same goes for my claim that Hansen's model has been falsified. It's simple to take his projections and compare them to actual temperature particularly if you start with the 2007 Real Climate post.

Do you agree that models are tuned and that's why the accurately represent past temperature history?

How can the models be validated if there's a 100% spread in climate sensitivity to CO2? If they are based on physics then a model with a climate sensitivity of 2.2 and one that has 4.4 can't both be valid. They may both have been tuned to accurately represent past history but since they can't both be based on physics then there is a problem. Either one or both are invalid.

Sigh.

Climate models are based on assumptions. These assumptions introduce errors. Supercomputers can only crunch numbers to a certain extent as the climate system is incredibly complex and computing time is limited. Models of course need to match currently available historical data and they are "tuned" to reflect that.

The laws of physics are known and are used as inputs. However, while it is relatively easy to predict future temperatures, sea levels, etc based on CO2 and other greenshouse gases alone, when you bring in clouds, aerosols, ocean absorption, albedo changes due to changing sea ice, etc, you start to get divergence in your models. This happens because the science behind these is not completely understood and the historical data only goes back so much. The data set for history is limited.

Quote: boymimbo

It is relatively easy to predict future temperatures, sea levels, etc based on CO2 and other greenshouse gases alone

If it's so easy to predict future weather, why can't they be accurate for the next 36 to 48 hours?

Quote: PBguy

My point is that you don't need a source for something that you yourself can do. If you claim that it was hot yesterday I wouldn't expect you to provide a source for that claim as I can easily verify it. The same goes for my claim that Hansen's model has been falsified. It's simple to take his projections and compare them to actual temperature particularly if you start with the 2007 Real Climate post.

Again, I disagree, as providing a credible source is important to make sure that the information is reliable and reflects the latest knowledge that we have. It also needs to be placed in its proper context having been reviewed by professional peers in the industry to make sure nothing important is being omitted. The source you provided is not credible. Hansen's model, after 20 years of following the trend, might very well now be starting to deviate from the observed data. But I would want at the very least to hear this from a professional climate scientist for the reasons stated.

Quote: PBguy

Do you agree that models are tuned and that's why the accurately represent past temperature history?

I never said they weren't.

Quote: PBguy

How can the models be validated if there's a 100% spread in climate sensitivity to CO2? If they are based on physics then a model with a climate sensitivity of 2.2 and one that has 4.4 can't both be valid. They may both have been tuned to accurately represent past history but since they can't both be based on physics then there is a problem. Either one or both are invalid.

I don't agree. I think you can have two or more different models based on the same laws of physics but with different parametrizations and all still be valid. One model might be better than the other at matching the empirical observations during certain intervals of time but the important thing is that they give correct predictions about the overall trend- which they do.